Monday, March 30, 2009

Solution to Economic Crisis - Drug Testing

This one is just clear to me. People want to be on welfare, then test them for drugs. We can't be letting people sit all day watching Judge Joe Brown on their flat screen TV's while I have to work and support them. Most of them welfare queens and kings are probably on the dope. If only there was a way to get drug users off the public dole and back into taking care of themselves. They were given my tax money to buy that TV, here's to hoping they bought some bootstraps too, because they have some self-lifting to do.

Well now we have a hero. Thank you God for Delegate Craig Blair (R) and his appropriately titled House Bill 3007.
The purpose of this bill is to create a random drug testing program for applicants and recipients of federal-state and state assistance in the form of welfare or food stamps or both, and unemployment compensation. Any applicant or recipient who fails an initial drug test will be required to pass a second drug test in the following thirty to sixty days to maintain eligibility for or recipients of such benefits. Failing the secondary drug test results in ineligibility for benefit for a period of two years, and requires a mandatory drug test as part of a re-application for benefits.
Get them drug users off welfare and give it to people who deserve it, although I really doubt there are many that deserve it. Well, other than my half-sister's step-niece, who is only 19 and has had it rough. But she is a hard worker, a rock-ribbed conservative, and definitely no druggie. Its just that its hard for her to take care of her 5 kids, that would be rough on anyone. Luckily her Medicaid pays for her Ativans and Lortabs.

There's only one part of this bill I don't like, and its all the way at the bottom, like they were trying to hide it. Either that or the ACLU has a spy in the Republican delegation.
The commissioner shall be responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of any and all drug test results administered as part of the program. Random drug test results shall only be used for the purpose of denying, or determining eligibility for continued receipt of, state unemployment compensation. At no time shall drug test results be released to any public or private person or entity.
No, you all are wrong on this one. I want to know if my tax dollars are used so someone can buy some dope or meth. That way I can place scorn on them. Maybe make them wear a scarlet "D" for "Druggie". I am just joking on that last part but am dead serious about the first two sentences of this paragraph. Let prospective employers know about it to so they know what they could be hiring once the druggies are off unemployment insurance.

I also listened to liberal views on this and rejected them as soon as I figured out they were godless. Took me about 3 seconds, which is quick, but I am smart. Don't worry, reader, hang out here and you will be as good as I am at picking out liberal lies. Maybe even better :) Anyway, this liberal is wrong. The druggies are addicted? So what, seems like they need some tough love. There is no excuse for drug use anyway, unless you got addicted due to pain. Increased cost and burden on non-profits? Well, we will be saving the 100's of billions we spend on welfare with the small cost of testing. I don't have the exact numbers, so don't quote me. But that is what I heard and it makes sense. As for the non-profits, that's what the free market is all about. Let the private sector take up for it, they are more efficient. Leave it to them, they will do it right and won't skimp on money I am sure of that. What about the children? Well, its not my fault they were born to druggies. Good thing my half-sister's step-nieces 5 children have such a dependable mom. Anyway, don't worry about reading that editorial, I just told you all that liberal's arguments and destroyed them in one paragraph. Case closed.

Unfortunately, I just don't know if this bill will pass. Seems the Democrat party in this state are stalling things for the God-fearing amongst us.
Republicans at the Capitol Thursday said a number of their bills, from tax cuts to nonpartisan judicial elections, have languished in committees while bills that would increase government spending are moving ahead.
Bills like HB 3007 are being introduced in 8 states including ours. So lets get the word out and give a thanks to smart people like Delegate Craig Blair (R) and Don Surber.

Ole Don just gave me and like-minded folks a hand in supporting this bill on his very excellent and informative blog. Don is real smart you should read it. And Delegate Craig Blair looks very stern on his laptop at the legislative session. He seems like he is a hard worker. Be sure to send them emails thanking them for supporting this necessary legislation. Go to the Daily Mail vent line too if you have time. Don't bother with the Gazette, that is just liberal propaganda. I would like to know who owns the Gazette. They need to get their act together like the Daily Mail owners.


Anonymous said...

What happens to the rejected stimulus money if it won't go to the unemployed drug users? Does the state get to keep it and spend it elsewhere?

Reggie N. said...

That is a good question. I have been told that the state's can reallocate those moneys anyway they want, like SC Gov. Sanford wants to do. My opinion is that they should use the money that would normally go to the druggie on unemployment and put it to drug testing that druggie. So then we get extra savings that and can put that unemployment cash toward other useful things like more abstinence education.

Now, some liberals are trying to fight Gov. Sanford's constitutional right to do with the money what he wants. He is the governor, or the chief unitary executive of SC, after all. Its just a shame that Barak Hussain Obama thinks he can dictate what Sanford can or can't do with that money in his own state. I don't know where Obama thinks he has those kinds of powers. I say lets take it to the Supreme Court. There are at least 4 good justices there now who will side with the executive powers here so Sanford has a good chance to win.

Anonymous said...

I agree... State's rights should trump all... especially Barack!


‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›